In post game PCs, McCarthey has said that he would have preferred to have run more, but he left it in Rodgers hands. That was a couple years ago.

I doubt he has suddenly started trusting Rodgers less and micro managing him more.

I get what you're saying, but ultimately, it's Mike McCarthy's responsibility. If Rodgers is not running the ball enough, than McCarthy needs to change that. He's the head coach, not Rodgers. He has to manufacture a run game. I don't mind so much last season when the Packers didn't have much talent at running back and was playing a stout defense, but that should not be the case this year. Rodgers is an elite passer. I have no doubt he would rather pass the vast majority of the time rather than run. He needs some check-and-balance from his head coach if he is, in fact, going with the pass option calls too often. Considering the amount of sub-packages (nickel/dime) the Packers face, there's no doubt in my mind they could run more, at times.

Finally, we have the RBs to take our running game to levels we may not have seen in GB since Taylor & Hornung. If your QB is checking out to much in order to pass, and getting himself in trouble, the HC can pull him aside, or get in his ear and adjust accordingly. As a matter of fact, McCarthy has an obligation as HC to do so. Ball control will keep Kaepernick off the filed. It is that simple. Fundamental football.

I get what you're saying, but ultimately, it's Mike McCarthy's responsibility. If Rodgers is not running the ball enough, than McCarthy needs to change that. He's the head coach, not Rodgers. He has to manufacture a run game. I don't mind so much last season when the Packers didn't have much talent at running back and was playing a stout defense, but that should not be the case this year. Rodgers is an elite passer. I have no doubt he would rather pass the vast majority of the time rather than run. He needs some check-and-balance from his head coach if he is, in fact, going with the pass option calls too often. Considering the amount of sub-packages (nickel/dime) the Packers face, there's no doubt in my mind they could run more, at times.

In the SF game, they started running the ball, but Benson was a dog and we had nobody else.

In the Seattle game, I am pretty sure that McCarthey addressed it at half time. Rogers did hand it off a bit more.

But they still didn't have much for a RB.

They actually ran a lot at the end of the year. Because it was working and Harris was getting yards.

I don't think they need to run more. They need to run better. When they know you have to run it, you need to be able to hand it off and grind out some tough yards.

I get what you're saying, but ultimately, it's Mike McCarthy's responsibility. If Rodgers is not running the ball enough, than McCarthy needs to change that. He's the head coach, not Rodgers. He has to manufacture a run game. I don't mind so much last season when the Packers didn't have much talent at running back and was playing a stout defense, but that should not be the case this year. Rodgers is an elite passer. I have no doubt he would rather pass the vast majority of the time rather than run. He needs some check-and-balance from his head coach if he is, in fact, going with the pass option calls too often. Considering the amount of sub-packages (nickel/dime) the Packers face, there's no doubt in my mind they could run more, at times.

They don't need to run more. They need to run better.

With nobody healthy, it wasn't a viable option. To stubbornly hand it off when Benson can only get 2 yards per is not better than what Rodgers can do without any running game.

With nobody healthy, it wasn't a viable option. To stubbornly hand it off when Benson can only get 2 yards per is not better than what Rodgers can do without any running game.

No, I didn't consider Benson a healthy RB. Even when he was healthy.

And I get that to a degree as well. But 2-3 yards per carry followed by a 40-50 yard run can still lead to a nice average yards per carry (such as 15 runs for a 2 yard gain + a 50 yard gain). That's how the running game works sometimes. The play-caller has to patient and pound the rock. Eventually, a big chunk is likely to come lose (from the metaphorical rock). Running a few times for 2-3 yard gains and then just saying "ahh fuck it, let's just pass" isn't a good situation to be in, even with an elite quarterback.

As I said, I didn't mind so much last year with the talent that was available at the running back position and against a stout defense like the 49'ers. However, I can see similar things happening this season, and that's what I don't like. Hopefully I'm wrong. I understand this team NEEDS to be a pass first team given the personnel, but more patience is need in the run game, especially at specific times.

And I get that to a degree as well. But 2-3 yards per carry followed by a 40-50 yard run can still lead to a nice average yards per carry (such as 15 runs for a 2 yard gain + a 50 yard gain). That's how the running game works sometimes. The play-caller has to patient and pound the rock. Eventually, a big chunk is likely to come lose (from the metaphorical rock). Running a few times for 2-3 yard gains and then just saying "ahh fuck it, let's just pass" isn't a good situation to be in, even with an elite quarterback.

As I said, I didn't mind so much last year with the talent that was available at the running back position and against a stout defense like the 49'ers. However, I can see similar things happening this season, and that's what I don't like. Hopefully I'm wrong. I understand this team NEEDS to be a pass first team given the personnel, but more patience is need in the run game, especially at specific times.

The 50+ yard runs don't win games. When you need 3 yards and the D knows you are going to run, you have to be able to get it.

Getting 2 yards a carry for 18 carries and with a couple 60 yard carries mixed in, you get a great average, but you were completely useless for 90% of the game. Which means you will get a lot of 3 and outs and fail to score.

If it is 3rd and 4 and you're going to get 2 yards 90% of the time, you can't depend on that running game.

We need a running game and the threat of a running game. I have no real complaints about Mike McCarthy's play-calling as regards "abandoning the run" . You got the best passer in the league, a shit-box-line that cannot even keep from holding, much-less open a hole...

We need a running game to put these games away. It takes a toll on the defense when we can't run, also. A big toll.

We know Rodgers can deal with just about every situation, but wouldn't it be better if (FOR ONCE) he didn't have to?

The only reason we have "sustained" drives is because our line fucked up the first two plays and Rodgers and our receiving corps bailed us out on 3rd down, repeatedly.

That aspect is a pleasure to witness (3rd and 11, Rodgers runnin' the show, no problem.) Tough on my heart, though, the 1st two downs are drivin' me, lol

To this day I cannot discern if we have had good running backs or not. I DON'T SEE A HOLE FOR THEM TO GET THROUGH, when they don't.

In post game PCs, McCarthey has said that he would have preferred to have run more, but he left it in Rodgers hands. That was a couple years ago.

I doubt he has suddenly started trusting Rodgers less and micro managing him more.

That's funny, because Aaron Rodgers has come out repeatedly saying we need to run more. Here's a few quotes from 2013 and 2012 interviews:

NFL.com said:

"I just think it's better when we have balance for everybody," Rodgers said during a Q&A with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Tyler Dunne, published Saturday. "It helps with the passing game. It slows down the rush. It gives us opportunities to have some more one-on-ones outside."

ProFootballTalk said:

Rodgers said during his weekly radio show on WAUK-AM that the Packers can’t just throw the ball on every play, and so they’ve got to get more out of their running game than they had on Sunday, when they picked up 66 yards on 26 carries.

“Quantity is important – we want to have a certain amount of runs every game to keep them honest,” Rodgers said, via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

ProFootballTalk said:

“I think you just have to have at least a little bit of a threat at it,” Rodgers tolk Homer & Thunder of ESPN Milwaukee, “because we do a lot of play-action, movement game, where we’re breaking and rolling out or just play-action and throwing timing routes, and the defense has to respect it enough to suck up a little bit on the fake and give you some good throwing lanes. Sometimes you can do that by just having a big-name back in there and sometimes you need to be effective doing it. We’re going to have to prove that we can run the ball.”

The 50+ yard runs don't win games. When you need 3 yards and the D knows you are going to run, you have to be able to get it.

Getting 2 yards a carry for 18 carries and with a couple 60 yard carries mixed in, you get a great average, but you were completely useless for 90% of the game. Which means you will get a lot of 3 and outs and fail to score.

If it is 3rd and 4 and you're going to get 2 yards 90% of the time, you can't depend on that running game.

Similar to what? To when we didn't have any RBs?

Or when we were top 5 in attempts and Harris put up 4.6 per?

You missed the point entirely. That's why I used the phrase "pounding the rock," or whatever the cliche' Gruden used to use. Yeah, 10 carries might only average 2 yards, but if a team sticks with it, they're likely to get many carries that are much better. Such as 3, 4, 5, or perhaps even 20+ yard carries. It's obviously never going to be a guarantee that a team can pick up a few yards when needed, even a great running team. But patient must be maintained because it's very likely holes will open up eventually, especially with a talented RB like Lacy, Franklin, and maybe Harris. There's absolutely no reason the Packers should average 2.0 yards a carry next season, even against teams like the 49'ers. I just hope if they are averaging that after a handful of carries, they don't abandon the run game in critical moments. I don't really care about the overall running stats or number attempts. I care more about the play-calling at critical moments in games, which McCarthy/Rodgers sometimes get away from running at all after they fall behind.

Besides, you say 90% of the game based on my example, but I hardly think roughly 15 plays (at 2 ypc) is "90%" of the game. Swoosh, over the head. I was only talking about running plays, thereby excluding all passing plays, which should be the majority of the Packers play-calls. I'm OK with a handful or two of 2 yards per carry, so long as the Packers can break a few longer runs of 5+ yards. Enough of those will make the defense respect the run at least a little, which will open other things up for the passing game. However, if the patience isn't maintained, even if not having much success, Rodgers is going to continue to be under pressure and it's going to be harder to pass.

Roughly a 4.5+ yards per carry average should be a gimme with this team, considering the type of coverage the Packers receive. Defense sell out and play coverage. A lot of teams beg the Packers to run, because they know they won't have the patience to beat them that way. McCarthy and Rodgers seem to itch BADLY to pass the ball, which I get. However, if a defense is begging them to run, then take it!! To their credit, they did a better job of that late last season, but I personally have to see more consistency than the past multiple seasons to believe that's going to be the case going forward. It seems we have better talent at the running back position now, but what happens if Lacy and/or Franklin are injured for a couple of weeks? It's likely to happen. Will things go right back to running draws out of shotgun formations every once and awhile with little success, and then abandon the run completely? I hope not. As great as Rodgers is, that's what opposing defense are hoping to receive, because the Packers haven't shown they will beat many teams any other way.

You missed the point entirely. That's why I used the phrase "pounding the rock," or whatever the cliche' Gruden used to use. Yeah, 10 carries might only average 2 yards, but if a team sticks with it, they're likely to get many carries that are much better. Such as 3, 4, 5, or perhaps even 20+ yard carries. It's obviously never going to be a guarantee that a team can pick up a few yards when needed, even a great running team. But patient must be maintained because it's very likely holes will open up eventually, especially with a talented RB like Lacy, Franklin, and maybe Harris. There's absolutely no reason the Packers should average 2.0 yards a carry next season, even against teams like the 49'ers. I just hope if they are averaging that after a handful of carries, they don't abandon the run game in critical moments. I don't really care about the overall running stats or number attempts. I care more about the play-calling at critical moments in games, which McCarthy/Rodgers sometimes get away from running at all after they fall behind.

Besides, you say 90% of the game based on my example, but I hardly think roughly 15 plays (at 2 ypc) is "90%" of the game. Swoosh, over the head. I was only talking about running plays, thereby excluding all passing plays, which should be the majority of the Packers play-calls. I'm OK with a handful or two of 2 yards per carry, so long as the Packers can break a few longer runs of 5+ yards. Enough of those will make the defense respect the run at least a little, which will open other things up for the passing game. However, if the patience isn't maintained, even if not having much success, Rodgers is going to continue to be under pressure and it's going to be harder to pass.

Roughly a 4.5+ yards per carry average should be a gimme with this team, considering the type of coverage the Packers receive. Defense sell out and play coverage. A lot of teams beg the Packers to run, because they know they won't have the patience to beat them that way. McCarthy and Rodgers seem to itch BADLY to pass the ball, which I get. However, if a defense is begging them to run, then take it!! To their credit, they did a better job of that late last season, but I personally have to see more consistency than the past multiple seasons to believe that's going to be the case going forward. It seems we have better talent at the running back position now, but what happens if Lacy and/or Franklin are injured for a couple of weeks? It's likely to happen. Will things go right back to running draws out of shotgun formations every once and awhile with little success, and then abandon the run completely? I hope not. As great as Rodgers is, that's what opposing defense are hoping to receive, because the Packers haven't shown they will beat many teams any other way.

You missed the point entirely. That's why I used the phrase "pounding the rock," or whatever the cliche' Gruden used to use. Yeah, 10 carries might only average 2 yards, but if a team sticks with it, they're likely to get many carries that are much better. Such as 3, 4, 5, or perhaps even 20+ yard carries. It's obviously never going to be a guarantee that a team can pick up a few yards when needed, even a great running team. But patient must be maintained because it's very likely holes will open up eventually, especially with a talented RB like Lacy, Franklin, and maybe Harris. There's absolutely no reason the Packers should average 2.0 yards a carry next season, even against teams like the 49'ers. I just hope if they are averaging that after a handful of carries, they don't abandon the run game in critical moments. I don't really care about the overall running stats or number attempts. I care more about the play-calling at critical moments in games, which McCarthy/Rodgers sometimes get away from running at all after they fall behind.

Besides, you say 90% of the game based on my example, but I hardly think roughly 15 plays (at 2 ypc) is "90%" of the game. Swoosh, over the head. I was only talking about running plays, thereby excluding all passing plays, which should be the majority of the Packers play-calls. I'm OK with a handful or two of 2 yards per carry, so long as the Packers can break a few longer runs of 5+ yards. Enough of those will make the defense respect the run at least a little, which will open other things up for the passing game. However, if the patience isn't maintained, even if not having much success, Rodgers is going to continue to be under pressure and it's going to be harder to pass.

I was actually saying that they will be more productive this year. If they have healthy running backs.

I really said 18 runs for 2 yards each and 2 for big yards. 18 out 20 is 90%. I didn't base it on your example. I based it on mine.

If you need 3 yards and 90% of the time you run, you only get 2, it would be stupid to run on 3rd and 3. Because 90% of the time (That you try to run for 3+ yards) you would fail.

With Benson and all the injured RBs we had, we couldn't really run. So continuing to "pound the rock" when we couldn't get the 3 yards when we needed it, would have been foolish.

They didn't decide not to run. They couldn't and tried to make up for that with the passing game.

doddpower said:

Roughly a 4.5+ yards per carry average should be a gimme with this team, considering the type of coverage the Packers receive. Defense sell out and play coverage. A lot of teams beg the Packers to run, because they know they won't have the patience to beat them that way. McCarthy and Rodgers seem to itch BADLY to pass the ball, which I get. However, if a defense is begging them to run, then take it!! To their credit, they did a better job of that late last season, but I personally have to see more consistency than the past multiple seasons to believe that's going to be the case going forward. It seems we have better talent at the running back position now, but what happens if Lacy and/or Franklin are injured for a couple of weeks? It's likely to happen. Will things go right back to running draws out of shotgun formations every once and awhile with little success, and then abandon the run completely? I hope not. As great as Rodgers is, that's what opposing defense are hoping to receive, because the Packers haven't shown they will beat many teams any other way.

Kind of like when they had Harris running. 4.6 per and were top 5 in attempts.

They could run, so they did. Unlike earlier when they wanted too but couldn't.

That's funny, because Aaron Rodgers has come out repeatedly saying we need to run more. Here's a few quotes from 2013 and 2012 interviews:

Perhaps he needs to talk to himself about his play calling...

That is kind of my point.

The did need to run more and wanted too.

Many are assuming, inaccurately, they don't want to run the ball. You can't "just run the ball" if you have nobody to carry it.

McCarthey and Rodgers both have said they want to run more. But if your RBs are all either injured or Benson, it won't matter what they want. Rodgers can want to run the ball, but if that isn't going to work, he can't just do it anyway.

The proof is, when they got a decent RB, they ran more often and more productively.

Which probably won't change with the addition of Lacey and Franklin.

They will probably be in the middle of the league in rushing attempts. The change will hopefully be how productive they are.

Kind of like when they had Harris running. 4.6 per and were top 5 in attempts.

They could run, so they did. Unlike earlier when they wanted too but couldn't.

As I said in my previous post, overall running stats are great, but I care more about game management and when certain plays are called. If I recall correctly, the running game was working pretty good against the 49'ers in the playoffs, but after the Packers got behind, the run game largely became a non-factor. That goes back to my larger point in that the Packers play calling lacks patient and confidence when it's needed most, imo. Obtaining a certain number of carries a game or being top 5 in attempts is great, but the timing of the attempts is key to me, and that could definitely be improved upon, despite the statistics, which never tell the whole story. I can understand the desire to pass every play when behind, but there's no way that's going to win the game against a defense and offense like the 49'ers last year in the playoffs, and others we'll face this season. Be patient, and at least keep the game close to have a shot at the end.

As I said in my previous post, overall running stats are great, but I care more about game management and when certain plays are called. If I recall correctly, the running game was working pretty good against the 49'ers in the playoffs, but after the Packers got behind, the run game largely became a non-factor. That goes back to my larger point in that the Packers play calling lacks patient and confidence when it's needed most, imo. Obtaining a certain number of carries a game or being top 5 in attempts is great, but the timing of the attempts is key to me, and that could definitely be improved upon, despite the statistics, which never tell the whole story. I can understand the desire to pass every play when behind, but there's no way that's going to win the game against a defense and offense like the 49'ers last year in the playoffs, and others we'll face this season. Be patient, and at least keep the game close to have a shot at the end.

Really you are talking about 2 drives.

The last one we were down by more than a TD and were in desperation mode. It did result in a TD.

The first drive in the half was all of 2 runs and a sack, forcing a punt.The second included 2 runs for 23 yards and ending with a false start putting us in 3rd and long so we couldn't run. Resulting in a FG.The third was one of them you were talking about. Down by 7, it was 5 passes and a scramble. Ending in a punt.The fourth was another. Down by 14 It was 6 completed passes and 2 incomplete, Resulting in a punt. The fifth was that last one.

Personally, I thought they had a great game on O against a really tough D. Putting up 31 on the 49ers when they averaged giving up 17 a game.

Could they have been better? Maybe... Maybe not. You would have to look at the formations and see what the reads were to say if they should have been running or not.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.